The campaign will be targeted at areas which have large numbers of low income workers who will see their own incomes shrink due to the freeze in Working Tax credits and Housing Benefit.

Once again the out of touch posh boys seem to be heading towards an own goal. Low income workers are one of the most likely groups to have been on out of work benefits themselves as well as have family members struggling to survive on increasingly meagre support. The casualisation of low waged work means many people are in and out of temporary jobs, relying on Tax Credits to survive whilst working and unemployment benefits when not.

There is also space to leave comments about the brutal welfare reforms. Whilst the Tories will no doubt make the results of the survey up if it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear, it is a chance to tell the scum what you think.

” In November 2011 it was estimated that 2.4 million people in the UK received incapacity benefits. The principal aim of the coalition government’s welfare reform is to reduce this number and curtail a perceived culture of welfare dependency, helping into employment people previously assessed as being unable – or in common portrayals – unwilling to work. Measures include reassessment of existing Incapacity Benefit claimants, more stringent capability assessments for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and planned replacement of these benefits by a simplified Universal Credit. The Government has also pledged to cut by 20% Disability Living Allowance (DLA) – a targeted, flexible benefit paid to around 3.2 million people to assist with care and mobility costs – replacing it with Personal Independence Payments. This will end automatic entitlement of people with certain impairments and focus support on those deemed ‘most in need’.

These measures appear to have the backing of public opinion. An IPSOS Mori poll carried out for the BBC in September 2011 revealed that although a resounding 92% of British people wanted a benefits system providing a safety net for all, 63% doubted the UK benefits system works effectively, 72% wanted politicians to do more to cut the benefits bill and 84% wanted to see stricter testing for incapacity benefits. However, Responsible Reform, a report financed and undertaken by sick and disabled people themselves, analysed over 500 group responses made to the Government’s consultation on DLA reform and found that (in contrast to the Government’s claims of broad support for the measures) 74% opposed the plans. Overwhelmingly, respondents objected to plans to make people wait longer before they could access support (98%), opposed scrapping the lowest rate of DLA which allows many sick and disabled people to stay in work (92%), and resented the proposals to end use of DLA as a qualification for other benefits (99%).

Criticism of incapacity benefit reform has focussed on the methods for evaluating functional capacity and readiness for work used in Work Capability Assessments. Rather than enabling people with disabilities to find work, Government critics argue that changes to welfare policy are geared simply to cutting costs with the most vulnerable hardest hit.

Organisations such as Scope have raised concerns about the negative portrayal of disabled people in the media. A 2011 report prepared by the Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research and Glasgow Media Unit in association with Inclusion London, Bad News for Disabled People: How the Newspapers are Reporting Disability, has revealed that fewer articles now present disability sympathetically and the proportion focussing on disability fraud has increased. The quarterly statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions highlighting the numbers refused incapacity benefits have arguably fuelled the media rhetoric about scroungers and public anger towards the disabled. The Times for example, reported official Incapacity Benefit figures on 21st April 2011 under the headline ‘Too fat, too drunk, or just too lazy to work – but not to claim their benefit’.

Yet the media-fuelled perception of widespread benefit fraud is not borne out by official figures. The Department for Work and Pensions’ preliminary figures for 2010-11 estimated that about £130 million of the £5.6 billion paid annually on incapacity benefits (or about 2.4% of the total expenditure) was overpaid due to fraud and error. Over half of this (about £70 million) was due to official error rather than detectable fraud, which accounted for about £20 million of overpayments. Forty per cent of those whose claims are initially refused are subsequently granted Incapacity Benefit on appeal, which suggests that the tests are inappropriate and in fact increasing, rather than decreasing, costs to the taxpayer.

The policy of subjecting sick and disabled people to increasingly stringent regimes of testing contributes to this public culture of distrust. On 22 October 2011 thousands of disabled people, their families and allies, took to the streets in cities across Britain in Hardest Hit marches of protest. The policy problem is clear: on the one hand Government seeks to cut costs by presenting welfare reforms as a populist crusade against inefficiency and fraud; on the other, recipients of sickness and disability benefits see their support systems under attack and fear for their livelihood, independence and (in the case of some DLA recipients), their ability to make an economic contribution by participating in employment. It is therefore timely to reflect on the historical position of sick and disabled people in relation to state welfare provision and to analyse the role of media stereotypes in discriminating against recipients of aid.”

Increase wages of working people.
Benefits are not too high, wages are way too low.
Corporations are making millions if not billions on profits every year, but refuse to pay their staff a real wage. Outsourcing to other countries mean that we have less jobs here, and the jobs that are available are mostly at minimum wage.

Fuck me johnny are you psychic? I just posted a blog by some cnut claiming the self same thing complete with statistics too.
Hmmm makes you wonder dont it?

Ok if you check my recent posts you will find some nice stuff about payment by results with regard to to dwp and work program and civil soceity organisations theres a pdf on concerns about pbr to do with work program that were raised its to do with primes and bidding battles etc

Can they get even worse? (The answer is probably yes with IDS in charge).
Talk about horrible propaganda.
I can see naming and shaming of long term unemployed next (then lynch mobs of daily mail/sun/telegraph readers wanting to whip the workshy scumbags).
I have this horrible government and this country.
I just want a damn job, not have to deal with ill thought out hatred as I do not have one.

I said yes to both questions, and commented ‘don’t cut benefits’ If enough like-minded people do this, it will screw their results to hell. Either they’ll have to say ‘our poll shows people are against benefit cuts’ (unlikely) or they’ll say nothing and let it slowly fade away. What they won’t be able to do is say that thier loaded quaestions on a tory site, unlikely to be visited by ordinary people show the country is in favour of benefit cuts.

Ok we will do that then.
Get as many.as we can.
The strathclyde report on disability in the medis will help, use that . With example of daily mail and express example plus the shelter ads about homeless.
Fuck do they think homeless families become homeless just for fun? And nothing to do with their policies?

I wondered where I’d seen similar images… the smiling Aryan family pic is especially scary, and in terms of iconography, there is no difference at all with this ad and those used by the BNP. Goebbels would be pleased.

Reminds me of the cowboys putting the wagons in a circle when under attack. The Tories must really be rattled if they’re trying to drum up skewed statistics to back up their policies by asking their own party faithful what they think. What a bunch of tossers! I’ve just visited the website and told them what I think. There’s two fs in “off” isn’t there?

I appreciate your reasons, Poupee but personally, I don’t want them to be able to ignore a result that doesn’t go their way by claiming the poll had been hijacked by any group of dissenters; so I advocate answer the questions ‘yes’ and make the comment reasonable- such as ‘don’t cut’ ‘make the bankers pay’ or something of that ilk.

But I have to admit, it is very difficult not to advise them how to spell ‘off’

They only accept comments of 300 characters or less. I had trouble submitting a comment too, and had to heavily abridge what I had meant to say. No doubt they don’t have the stomach to read through all our collective anger…

Same difficulty – 300 characters is really only long enough to say “no, don’t change anything, you’re doing great” strangely enough … Had to use lots of shortened sentences and leave out some adjectives.

The Department for Work and Pensions insist they will still be spending the same on DLA in 2015/16 as they did last year – over £13bn and that the reforms to Personal Independence Payment are important to make sure the benefit is sustainable for the future.
Minister for Disabled People, Esther McVey said: “There’s a lot of misleading stories about the impact of our welfare reforms on disabled people. The truth is, the UK continues to be a world-leader in the rights for disabled people – as so wonderfully showcased by the Paralympics.
“However too often under the current system we are spending on overpayments where people’s conditions have changed, with £630m a year on DLA alone.
“Our welfare reforms will ensure the billions we spend on benefits, better reflect today’s understanding of disability and offer the targeted support disabled people need to live independent lives.”

So, this change in circumstances..er so that cancer you may suffer from is suddenly going to go away? Or the amputated leg will grow back.. Oh sure you can get a false one , but hey thats gonna cost the ole taxpayer a few quid ennit?
And lets not forget ward and hospital closures , so that treatment you need in order to assist that change in circumstances might not be available..
Then again a change in circumstances may nit be for the better. You might get worse..
Will the assessir be able to disgnose that?
Thats if they are a proper doctor, but thats the thing eh?
What if you got worse or more people got worse then they would need more money, and how will the poor economy survive?
Oh dear..all these sickies how awful.
They could on the other hand tell the media and joe bloggs that there arent any ill people at all as they are all workshy.
Hmm so next time you pass a hospital ( one that hasnt closed down) just pop in and shout ” you lazy bastards” or better still get the ‘hotel for malingerers’ closed down.
That way you can feel self righteous.
Like the minister for disabled.

It seemed to accept my submission ,I answered yes to both questions and kept my comment short just in case.I just said stop wasting 5 billion pounds on the Work Programme because it is a complete failure and stop demonizing and lying about the unemployed and sick.

Talk about a loaded question! What’s the point of asking whether benefit cuts are good or bad on the official Conservative Party website? Might as well as “Should we stop immigration?” on the BNP site. We all know what the overwhelming answer is going to be considering who the overwhelming type of visitors to each website are. Funny though why the Tories are doing this at all. Obviously they’re not sure if they can get away with benefit cuts to the poor or not and are trailing their coats.

There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics. Tory propaganda is a heady mix of all three.
Incomes for the top few percent have increased dramatically, so the average has to be used – which includes many, many pay cuts. This is then contrasted with benefits, which are calculated to be not much more than the bare-minimum to live on. Benefits have to follow, or exceed, the retail price index. Failure to keep to that standard will see people on benefits malnourished, fuel poverty becoming lack of fuel at-all and, lead to a rise in long-term health issues for many.
“All in this together?” For most, that’s a boat at the top end of a polluted creek without a paddle. For the Tories, thats a conspiracy to ‘bring back the good-old days’ of Dickensian Britain.

Hooray!!! Yeah ASA can be a bit lacklustre but by sheer weight of numbers they have to pay attention and,,whilst its being challenged it will at least delay it.., just keep on thwarting them and any negative publicity might help., get the ball rolling.,

Remind the public how much money has been wasted on a shit vebture eg work program and all the poverty pimps who lined their pockets exploiting the unemployed and the conspiritors who spead the lies and statistics of hate crime on increase ( strathclyde univesity report on disabled portrayd in the media)

Strange how the UK and the US run in parallel in so many ways!. The US has such great influence on/in the UK, the UK also has a great influence on/in the US, so many times what happens in the US happens the next day in the UK!!!. Learn from what the US does and says.

More precisely, 1.ideas about disability from the USA but adapted to the UK and other EU countries, starting with the Netherlands, 2. the Lisbon Treaty, which ratified economic and labour policies planned by the EU, not just Germany.

Dear Johnny and everyone who views this site. Where are all these(human rights) lawyers who will research and defend the people who really need it now? All I can do at the moment, is keep myself informed and repeat, repeat, to everyone (to the point, I hope I’m boring), that we are all being fucked over. Not so slowly, but, quickly. I’ve fallen out with my sister, and others avoid me…

Just know there are lots of us out there fighting as well, Your sister just wait till they come for her, or she loses her job or becomes sick and ill. then with luck she will see the truth. You are not alone.. we are together in this. the people who want to be treated decently.

That disgusting advert is nothing but an incitement to hatred. I’m sure it would be classed as a hate crime if anyone else tried to purposefully denigrate and demonize another section of society like this. How the hell can they keep getting away with this despicable behaviour? The Tories are pure filth. I honestly wouldn’t piss on one if they burst into flames in front of me.

Those are my thoughts exactly – if this level of vitriol was directed at any other section of society it would indeed be classed as a hate crime & Plod would be kept extremely busy feeling collars. It seems that bigotry against benefit claimants is the last acceptable form of prejudice.

Johnny, I don’t know if others have pointed this out, so let me say that the “space to leave comments” can be dangerous. I wonder if, say, names and other data about people or institutions a reader does not like, can be entered. If so, this can lead to trouble. A year or two ago, a Dutch site set up by Geert Wilders had a comment space. I noticed this, and notified the government and a MEP. A related set-up helped the Nazis arrest and murder almost all Amsterdam Jews.

Seeing the debacle that is the Universaljobsnatch, maybe another way to look at the survey/comments box is that any data gathered via their ‘survey’ is quite a bit less likely to be used to aid mass murder (just yet, anyway) than happened in Amsterdam. Here, they’re just not that organised. It (thankfully) seems more likely that any voices of dissent that don’t fit with the programme – using the word advisedly – will be quietly put in the electronic bin – maybe the comments will have been noted/read first though (then disregarded). If there were thousands of them rather than just one or two would it be in some way more effective than if no-one or only 2 people offered an ‘alternative’ view? It’s hard to know but what is there to lose (other than, ultimately, our freedom).

They ‘probably ‘know where we live’ anyway (by our curtains) & seem to be just now getting fully stuck into using unwieldy & blunt instruments to terrorise. It’s (probably) naive to think that however brutal things are getting – & they are – this lot are still some way off having an actual plan in the sense that Mr Hitler ‘had one’ & any data they collect will most likely be lost by Monster before, & should we ever reach, the point where the government of the day are persecuting their ‘dissenters’ in ways other than the gradual erosion of their sources of income. Which is bad enough but not quite (yet) the same.

This isn’t to trivialise the point about leaving electronic feetmarks in the sand – not a technical term – and probably the above-expressed opinions come from a misguided optimism which comes from an ‘ignorance is bliss’ lack of knowledge in the computer age/technical knowledge area. More and more of us, even if we weren’t originally more than just ‘fairly concerned’ about (say) ID cards – maybe not too clear about all of the possible repercussions – have had for some time now a ‘gut feeling’ that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (& in the UK). If the echoes of SS Germany are now starting to be hard to ignore, everyone will & can draw their own conclusions about which course(s) of action to take – whether it’s faced with a job centre ‘adviser’/work programme administrator waving a waiver or something like this tinpot survey asking us ‘what we think’ …..

Your words, “just yet,” precisely express one of my worries. We cannot predict what will happen, so imho any *possible* threat should be pointed out. Who knows what others say, or what is recorded? I’m American-Dutch-Swedish (sorta), and my Dutch partner’s Jewish family was largely murdered at Auschwitz, with the help of the municipal registration system. Every Amsterdam resident till the end of the War, was listed, with his or her religion. I considered the danger from Wilders’ site to be quite real, given my knowledge of this incident.

@George Berger
So you know more than anyone should have to about comparisons/fears surfacing here. (“Just yet” only comes from my tendency to be optimistic -when it suits – and this is a difficult act to keep up with each incredible ‘development’/day that passes). it’s probably a form of denial born of fear born out of reading too many accounts of what ‘can’ happen – and did. If I was even slightly more of a realist & less of an idealist I’d probably have a better handle on reality/be a better judge of character and be able to spot dangers from more than 2ft away, rather than finding myself wondering whether it’s safe to write things on a Tory website & then doing it anyway (because “it can’t happen here, to us, can it?”).

I have read most of what Primo Levi wrote as well as books like ‘A day in the life of Ivan Ivanovitch’ and seen repeatedly the footage that we’ve all seen fictionalised and on newsreals (& even met Helen Bamber, very briefly). Still, your explanation of why you understand the inherent dangers leaves me very clear that there is nothing I can write in reply to your comment above that would not sound either trite, meaningless (or worse). Thank you for making me think a bit more this afternoon.

@shirleynott. You are welcome. These are matters that I simply have had to keep on top of, since 1972. people I know and admire in four countries, including the UK, are involved. By all means, do keep on thinking. G.

I was referring to Johnny’s remarks about how WordPress works. Also, I meant that one person can express his or her dislike of another person, on that place. But the point about lists was indeed on my mind.

Complained to the advertising standards this is a copy of my complaint to the advertising standards “They are saying that “Do you think it’s fair that people can claim more in benefits that the average family earns through going to work?” This is misleading as families in work get more benefits as in working tax credits, housing benefits, and many more. This is stigmatising the poorest unemployed. This will have a detrimental effect on people. and make people worse off financially. Here is the link http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/benefits_haveyoursay.aspx It has been shown that the standard thousands of families on £100k a year was misleading that the 3 generations unemployed is misleading. This will only create more hate against benefit claimants”

Inclusion London, a pan-London Deaf and disabled people’s organisation, is making this submission to voice our growing alarm and concern at the increasingly hostile and inaccurate portrayal of disabled people in the media, and what we believe are clear links between this media coverage and the rise in harassment and hate crime of disabled people. We also share a wider concern about the Government’s apparent role1 in contributing to this sustained level of unfair and inaccurate reporting.

I want to tell you all about the problems i am having in posting links and comments.
Just now and recently i have tried to post relevant links to ongoing discussions.
On each time i receive ‘gateway timeout’ at the precise point i am posting. Then i am told that my post or comment i have already done, but upon examination it isnt there. It seems to have disappeared.

I was posting the part of the levenson enquiry the concerns of the disabled portrayed in the media the negative portrayals and examples especially with regard to benefit claimants.

In the opening paragraph it makes it clear that govt is complicit.

I will try to post again , but look for the includon part of the levenson enquiry
On disabled concerns.

Just been reading up on how the supreme court wants to separate itself from government( become independent-bit like the useless independent ombudsman service) anyway they want to appoint their own chief executive and have sole responsibility for running the courts. What a joke The chief executive at present is Lord Nuberger who in 2011 said he wants a super injunction to bring twitter under control.(perhaps your being unable to post is a precursor to regulation?) He will also be carrying out judgements on laws made by the present government under a NEW BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS if the UK breaks away from EU laws, therefore making a mockery of the term INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT.

bobchewie I have had grave concerns of late and thought it best to look deeper into things. What I have found is the United Nations have a plan, it’s called Agenda 21 they want to implement sustainable development, which means they want to rid the earth of 6 billion people. I Know it sounds ridiculas but please look it up. All Governments are for it, we have to stop it by lawful rebellion, look that up also, not too many people are aware, if you mention it to other people they think you are mad.

Nope I haven’t photoshopped any pics in this post, people really are that ugly.

Two blind friends who were turned away from a Chinese restaurant because they had a guide dog have been awarded £1,000 each in compensation.
Andrea Hope and Jamie Coady were told by staff they could not sit in the main restaurant with the dog.

The incident took place in December 2005. The friends were told they could leave the animal tied up outside or take their food away.

The restaurant owners apologised and admitted a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The new owner of the Imperial City, Eileen Li, said the incident was regrettable.
“Everyone is welcome in here,” she said.

The friends had been out to celebrate Mr Coady’s birthday and said their night had been ruined and ended up going elsewhere.
Look at the picture above, real lookers huh? also having a dog in a restaurant I don’t care how well trained it is it still smells and licks its arse.

So they were going to tie it up outside and walk back in? Chinks can be really fucking stupid sometimes I think its genetic, maybe they didn’t want to cook it up by mistake.
I lose my patience with disabled people, especially the ones that try to mow you doon with their wheelchairs, “Oh I’m too fat to walk I have right of way” ugly people upset me too, its not that I’m shallow and uncaring well it might be but I don’t care.

Belfast is a changed city. The Protestants and the Catholics drink at the same water fountains now and use the same public restrooms, of course the Catholics still shit on the floor but with television commercials they will be potty trained in a few years it is hoped.
With all this brotherly love going around to keep it going we need a common foe so why not discriminate against the Raspberry ripples? you know it makes sense, a work-shy lazy bunch full of excuses like, “I’m blind” or “I don’t have any hands.” Why should they be given special treatment? I want my dog to eat with me when I pop doon to the KFC, every special bit of treatment they get means less for us pensioners so fuck em all and let God sort out his own.

PS. this does not mean that we should not break away from Europe, it means we should be looking at the hypocrisy of the judiciary that wants to eliminate itself from the impending laws being passed by fascists, not much
different from Europe in that respect which seems to vote in favour of criminals both incarcerated(I actually agree with the rulings on prisoners) and those not incarcerated(which I probably will not agree with i.e. condem govt. human rights.)

As the young Bob Dylan sang “You don’t need a weatherman. To know which way the wind blows.” Here is a conversation that took place between Margaret Thatcher and Patrick Jenkin (Head of Social Services):

Thatcher: “We have got to tackle this problem of people being better off out of work. I think we will have to go back to soup kitchens.”

Jenkins: “I said ‘Soup Kitchens’ Prime Minister?” And she said “Take that silly smile off your face, I mean it”

(source “The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State”, Timmins, 1995,)

Just looked at an updated essay by Nicholas Timms with regards to this book apparently one of a few updates – it clearly states in the 2001 essay that Child Benefit should not be means tested. We might not need a weatherman but we also do not need supporters who are against the rich being means tested, which this updated version states e.g. some can be affected by the reform of welfare which was not intended, he was referring to the fact that child benefit should not be means tested for the rich.

I was not passing on any comments about Timmin’s book in general, simply stating a source for a pertinent comment/prophecy of Thatcher . If purity of belief is to be the benchmark then who will be left save oneself? If Timmins should be out should Thatcher be in since she also believed that the benefits to the rich be means tested. Taking the good, ignoring the bad and avoiding buying into the ideologues monologue.

I lived and suffered through the Thatcher Era and nowhere did I ever read that she wanted to means test the rich, even if she did she would never have got it past her own government so she decided to steal the milk from school children instead and demonize the single parents. I take none of it neither good nor bad for as far as I am concerned Beveridges version of payments going only to those in NEED was the correct version, to the detriment of the REAL NEEDY have things been changed.

According to Ken Clark “she thought it was disgraceful that people who could afford it relied on the taxpayer to provide their health…she was quite happy that the vulnerable, the poor, should have the taxpayer do it for them. But people like you and me should take responsability for our own lives and should insure for these things.” (Timmins, p. 374). What she wanted and what she actually implemented was subject frequently to what she thought was politically expedient at the time so the soup kitchens she seeemd to like are now really flourishing amongst sectors of the communities who never used them before and the case for means testing of all benefits needs to be made with greater clarity.

It’s also worth remembering (or so I’m told) that Beveridge supported Work Program type projects so that “men and women should be “required as a condition of benefit to attend a work or training centre” after six months, earlier in times of low unemployment and later in times of high unemployement. (Timmins, p. 60) I think he was wrong because forced unpaid labour prolongs times of poverty by displacing workers who have decent wages with ones living on the margin. It benefits the employers through an increase in profits and creates ill-will amongst those who think they are being treated as slaves by the rich.

Another pertinent point to be made about the Thatcher era was that whenever child benefit was increased, the increase was taken off those who were on benefits. The increase was only paid to those families who were off benefits altogether and in full time work, not those in part-time work as some single parents were. I do not know what the situation is today regarding benefit withdrawal and child benefit perhaps those in jobs that rely on benefits to make up their wages might want to look into this.

The rich already pay for their own health with private health care in many cases anyway, the real case you and your friend Timms are making is why should the tax payer pay for the welfare state ?- answer it doesn’t National Insurance contributions pay for the welfare state, which is most certainly being abused by the rich, who are not in need, taking from it.

I will correct the statement regarding the rich paying for their own private health care, because it usually comes with their employment as yet another perk of those in upper and middle class positions, and is probably a tax loophole for the employer.

@guy fawkes you are overlooking the fact that some of these rich are paying for health care funded by tax payers.. How do you think they get their income? From govt (ie taxpayers) contracts…, so you were cottect in first place..

“The rich already pay for their own health with private health care in many cases anyway, the real case you and your friend Timms are making is why should the tax payer pay for the welfare state ?”
I don’t know Timmins so I can’t call him friend. The only thing I have read is from a book picked up from a charity shop a while ago. There is nothing I have written above that justifies the description that I am questioning the principle of tax payer having to pay for the Welfare state – something I have never even thought. As for the idea that all benefits be mean tested: I personally don’t see why not and I would like to read a clear case for not introducing the same, it doesn’t seem right that somebody who clearly doesn’t need help get’s it. Maybe this is a legacy of times gone past when a middle-class person could have complete power over a poor person who tried to claim national assistance?

The question is what is John correct about? Was there such things as training centres in the 30’s the time of the Beveridge report? Why does he make a distinction between high wage earners and those on the margins when talking of forced unpaid labour? The only point he was correct on was the one where the rich WERE treating people like slaves, but probably only those on the margins think so according to him and Mark A who does not think he is being exploited by the TCV.

The Beveridge Report was published at the end of 1942. The quotation that unemployed be “required as a condition of benefit to attend a work or training centre” is presented as a direct quote from the Beveridge Report according to the source (Timmins). Government Training Centres did come about in time (I attended one – voluntarily) and they were excellent compared to the Work Program. They had competent skilled tradesmen to retrain people. The certificates issued were indeed worth the paper they were printed on an and it provided me with a career for many years. I will always be thankful to those trainers.

Why should anyone have been denied welfare payments by middle class workers in the first place? Again there is a case for those who challenge government diktats and caring enough about the poor should work in welfare.
We all know about the stigma and the means testing that used to go on years ago and again it was mainly women whose marriages had failed due to domestic violence, that were applying for benefits. Someone on the news recently said there had been full employment for 35 years after the beveridge report, so it was in the 60’s that the need to claim from their national insurance policies arose not tax payers which you quoted thus: “According to Ken Clark , she(Thatcher) thought it was disgraceful that people who could afford it relied on the TAXPAYER to provide their health. She was quite happy the vulnerable and poor should have the TAXPAYER do it for them. Only the taxpayer didn’t they paid their own way through insurance.

“Why should anyone have been denied welfare payments by middle class workers in the first place?” Because some people are sadists at heart and they like to sort out other peoples lives even though they cannot sort themselves out.
“We all know about the stigma and the means testing that used to go on years ago and again it was mainly women whose marriages had failed ..”
Yes my mother had to raise 4 kids post WW2 on her own. She knew what a debtors court was (soo much so I have always tried to avoid debt) and whilst working full time she still had to depend on the SVDP to make ends meet. A common strand of middle-upper class thought from the time of Malthus in the 19th century, and carried on through the Social Darwinist’s, is that poverty is the fault of the poor and nowt can be done about it by the rich because it’s just nature at work. So Osborne and co are starting nothing new when they depict the poor as making life style choices. Wickedness towards the poor has a long history as you know.

They were called “Government Training Centres” at first and then “Government Skill Centres”. They were excellent (based on my own experience) but I’m told that around 1990 Thatcher decided to privatise them which, (according to somebody who worked in them) led to an asset stripping operation and they were all closed a couple of years later. An absolute disgrace and tragedy compared to the farce we have today with “training companies”. Those guys knew their jobs. They trained people in whatever skills were needed in the local area, e.g electronics, plumbing, joinery, umpteen trades and skills. If there was a relevant City&Guilds qualification they were trained to that lavel and sat the test.

@John thanks i wonderd what happened to skill centres, their ‘replacements’ today are anything but that, no more than a money making scam. As i posted here the other week companies like eos works who offer pretend jobs. Whereby they offer employers a mock up of the employers real workspace where candidates get to play at being at work.

Where are these mock up training centres? all we have now is holding centres to keep the unemployed off the streets and out of the black economy, while the wp providers hunt for work in mainly charities to put the unemployed. I know the war started in 1939 before you correct me.

@guy fawkes the centres are not mock up. The jobs are. I posted on here a short while ago. Under the heading ‘pretend jobs’ meaning that it was the ilusion of a workspace, however i contested was the workspace was phoney but was the work real. It suggested it was. In the quote from eos works. This meant:
It was hidden workfare
Or it was the workhouse.

Its akin to the workhouse ethic.,give the unemployed something to do..
What came across was that a lot of money tied up in it , the offers of free ‘training’ free ‘workspace’ free equipment, etc etc on offer to employers..
From the feedback i got from jobseekers who were sent to eos, it was rubbish,, ppl sent on fork lift jobs when they had no driving skills.,
Etc etc and staff were rude and insulting to jobseekers..
It never resulted in long term gainful employment.
But i already have heard of ’employment centres’ where you got to live there.
If you think about homeless families on increase..,

@guy fawkes .. Do you have a few problems?
Why on earth would i want to ‘promote’ such an awful concept?
I am following a line of enquiry ..

Trying to see where things might be heading..

And if so issue areas of concern.
Blimey.. Some people are hard work.
Did i not offer you a useful item on why we work for free.. If so then..why would i ‘promote’ something so disgusting as workhouse…

Sir guy.. I meant no disrespect.
I am looking into matters, to see what has been happening, what is happening and where things may lead.
This apparent attack by the conservative govt on ppl who are without a job seems either foolhardy or particularly vicious which leads me to wonder what is behind it. And where it may lead. Is that clear?

I think everybody knows where things are heading, I don’t think we need signposts to right wing propaganda we choose not to read. Just as the so called judicial system is gearing up for litigation by supposedly separating from government and it’s new human rights laws. If the government in power wanted to change human rights law when the time comes and the laws are favourable to the litigate, the chances are the newly separated independent justice system would find against them. If the laws are not favourable the judiciary would not exercise their independence and find in the litigates favour ,instead they would relate the fact that they have to work and pass judgement within the confines of the law. Perhaps you would like to comment on this – as for problems I would say most people who post on this page have problems don’t you?

I wish you guys would take my blog seriously http://www.clivelord.wordpress.com
The report Dynamic Benefits (2009) centreforsocialjustice.org.uk is a Trojan horse commissioned by IDS. Look at the graph on p.88, showing the withdrawal of means tested benefits as though they were taxes. The poverty trap can be described as a scroungers charter if that is your agenda. Means testing does discourage the unemployed from finding work. If all you do is demand that the government puts the clock back, you fall into the Tories’ trap, and allow their despicable anti-scrounger ads to look as though they made sense. I can’t explain more here

“In November 2011 it was estimated that 2.4 million people in the UK received incapacity benefits. The principal aim of the coalition government’s welfare reform is to reduce this number and curtail a perceived culture of welfare dependency, helping into employment people previously assessed as being unable – or in common portrayals – unwilling to work. Measures include reassessment of existing Incapacity Benefit claimants, more stringent capability assessments for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and planned replacement of these benefits by a simplified Universal Credit. The Government has also pledged to cut by 20% Disability Living Allowance (DLA) – a targeted, flexible benefit paid to around 3.2 million people to assist with care and mobility costs – replacing it with Personal Independence Payments. This will end automatic entitlement of people with certain impairments and focus support on those deemed ‘most in need’.

These measures appear to have the backing of public opinion. An IPSOS Mori poll carried out for the BBC in September 2011 revealed that although a resounding 92% of British people wanted a benefits system providing a safety net for all, 63% doubted the UK benefits system works effectively, 72% wanted politicians to do more to cut the benefits bill and 84% wanted to see stricter testing for incapacity benefits. However, Responsible Reform, a report financed and undertaken by sick and disabled people themselves, analysed over 500 group responses made to the Government’s consultation on DLA reform and found that (in contrast to the Government’s claims of broad support for the measures) 74% opposed the plans. Overwhelmingly, respondents objected to plans to make people wait longer before they could access support (98%), opposed scrapping the lowest rate of DLA which allows many sick and disabled people to stay in work (92%), and resented the proposals to end use of DLA as a qualification for other benefits (99%).

Criticism of incapacity benefit reform has focussed on the methods for evaluating functional capacity and readiness for work used in Work Capability Assessments. Rather than enabling people with disabilities to find work, Government critics argue that changes to welfare policy are geared simply to cutting costs with the most vulnerable hardest hit.

Organisations such as Scope have raised concerns about the negative portrayal of disabled people in the media. A 2011 report prepared by the Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research and Glasgow Media Unit in association with Inclusion London, Bad News for Disabled People: How the Newspapers are Reporting Disability, has revealed that fewer articles now present disability sympathetically and the proportion focussing on disability fraud has increased. The quarterly statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions highlighting the numbers refused incapacity benefits have arguably fuelled the media rhetoric about scroungers and public anger towards the disabled. The Times for example, reported official Incapacity Benefit figures on 21st April 2011 under the headline ‘Too fat, too drunk, or just too lazy to work – but not to claim their benefit’.

Yet the media-fuelled perception of widespread benefit fraud is not borne out by official figures. The Department for Work and Pensions’ preliminary figures for 2010-11 estimated that about £130 million of the £5.6 billion paid annually on incapacity benefits (or about 2.4% of the total expenditure) was overpaid due to fraud and error. Over half of this (about £70 million) was due to official error rather than detectable fraud, which accounted for about £20 million of overpayments. Forty per cent of those whose claims are initially refused are subsequently granted Incapacity Benefit on appeal, which suggests that the tests are inappropriate and in fact increasing, rather than decreasing, costs to the taxpayer.

The policy of subjecting sick and disabled people to increasingly stringent regimes of testing contributes to this public culture of distrust. On 22 October 2011 thousands of disabled people, their families and allies, took to the streets in cities across Britain in Hardest Hit marches of protest. The policy problem is clear: on the one hand Government seeks to cut costs by presenting welfare reforms as a populist crusade against inefficiency and fraud; on the other, recipients of sickness and disability benefits see their support systems under attack and fear for their livelihood, independence and (in the case of some DLA recipients), their ability to make an economic contribution by participating in employment. It is therefore timely to reflect on the historical position of sick and disabled people in relation to state welfare provision and to analyse the role of media stereotypes in discriminating against recipients of aid.”

I watched that bout of pm questions and wondered who their script writers were, all this guff about them not knowing what questions they are going to be asked before it is televised. They probably all have drama lessons along with their makeup artists.

Or a freudian slip.. What gets me is in this shitty ad campaign vilifying disabled aka scroungers they overlooked the reference to them as being complicit with media in spreading hate, and that was in the levenson enquiry, but i guess they didnt psy much attention to that.

With the BBC, you as a licence payer can complain about bias or offensive material, only not enough people do complain. I think you make things up as you go along chewie ads for what? against the disabled?

Do you not actually bother to read the title and related material of the blog you post on??????

I dont think you do….
Let me assist you if I may,,,

” The millionaires in Government are launching a new attack on the poor with an advertising campaign that attempts to blame unemployed, sick or disabled claimants for the problems caused by the rich. ”

Ok question of the day,I was assigned by the WP subbie to MWA changed to WRA,I completed 2 weeks for a private for profit company,on my signing on day at the JCP I brought up the fact that the WP had not even followed the basic DWP guidelines…Such as no fixed schedule,H&S and travel time was 4:10 Hours round trip..MWA cancelled..Brilliant,I have accepted a temp job,15 hours a week,the only benefit I receive is £71 a week JSA which I will lose,but am I still required to attend JCP and the WP as it will actually cost me money?

I notice you came back chewie, that’s good – no hard feelings. I am perfectly capable of digesting FACTS analyzing data and writing a critique. Propoganda is something I choose to ignore and concentrate my efforts on issues that are in opposition to that propoganda. I found the fact that you thought that these offensive posters would be put up in deprived areas quite telling. Are there no sick and disabled amongst those in rich areas, that are probably claiming benefits they may be well over the limit to claim if it was means tested?
In actual fact the deprived areas if you look at research is where the genuinely sick reside, the ones who die 10 years earlier than their rich neighbours – so to call these people scroungers and target only these deprived areas would most certainly be a misrepresentation of the FACTS,and why those who live in these areas other than the far right would be more sympathetic to the sick and unemployed’s plight.

As far as I understand, it only applies to those fully on benefits.Wonder if these greedy, grasping MPs would enjoy having their expenses on a smartcard & told they could only spend it in certain stores & on a restricted list of items…

It would be the opposite. The smartcard would come with the proviso that its ok to get your moat cleaned or crate of bollinger deliverred ( all compliant with the freebie rules)
Its ironice as the ‘smartcard’ idea is in contrast to the MPs expenses fiddles

Well, I made a comment – ‘In courts of law you are not allowed to ask questions like this, since it constitutes ‘leading the witness’. Your ‘reforms’ are intentionally unfair’. You get a note back saying ‘your comments are appreciated’ – I don’t think this will be,. Unfortunately, you have to leave your e-mail address but I used an old one that I hardly ever use.

The conservative party are utterly immoral.
What do they want people to do? commit suicide?so they wont be able to claim benefits?
Rich privileged people attacking the most vulnerable in society.
Have David Cameron Iain,Duncan smith or George Osbourne ever had to claim benefits? I don’t think so.

Follow Blog via Email

The growth of zero hours contracts is making it even harder for disabled workers to secure the reasonable adjustments they need to do their jobs, “valuable” new research suggests. Employers are displaying a “strong reluctance” to make reasonable adjustments for … Continue reading →

[with thanks to Tony Collins and Campaign for Change for permission to repost] Capita’s share price has fallen to a new 10-year low today (8 December 2016) after chief executive Andy Parker warned that “near-term headwinds” would hit trading performance in the first half of 2017. The company’s share price of 513p at lunchtime today was 9%… Continue Reading C […]

Devastation writes, SERIOUSLY BAD NEWS Sharp readers will remember the plan announced in 2015 to shrink the “estate” of the DWP by 20% over the next few years. Well, here are some examples of this move in Glasgow – where a whopping HALF of all Jobcentres will close!!!!!! This is devastating news, because thousands of […]

Report by CJ6.30PM-8.30PM Monday 21st Nov 2016 Unite Housing Workers and Social Housing Residents meeting. Only 6 people including CJ and Tim B. Discussed problems with social housing providers for workers and tenants, so in both our interests to get together. Another meeting pencilled in for 30thJan 2017. Nice coffees and luxury biscuits.Noon-1.15pm Weds 23 […]

Today, Netpol supporters received our November 2016 newsletter in their email in-boxes. It is now also available online here. If you would like to receive future email updates, sign up to Netpol’s ‘announcements’ list here. We would also like to ask for your help: if you think the work we undertake is important and worth … The post Read our November 2016 new […]